- excessive legislation, especially criminal legislation (pretty much anything that goes beyond "malum in se" deeds that have always been crimes(crimes that result in physical harm that can be confirmed medically, or cause financial/material loss that can be evaluated) + a bunch crimes against the state or imminent threats to public safety(drunk driving, possession of weapons/explosives/etc., espionage/treason, etc.) - there could be a total of about 70-80 deeds criminalized that would more than sufficient for a perfectly functioning society

- any other kind of restriction against persons other than preventive arrest(which should only be used in exceptional circumstances)

- any punishment other than prison(for serious crimes) or fines(which should be reasonable)

- disproportionate sentencing (for example more than 5yrs for non-violent crime, more than 15yrs for anything other than murder, terrorism with deaths, treason/espionage)

- state surveillance (public cctv, lack of anonymous pre-pay services for telecom/internet, any kind of retention data, KYC-like procedures for banking or other financial services)

- the state offering public info on criminal convictions and/or keeping criminal records (with perhaps some extraordinary exceptions related to employment in security or other sensitive areas - they could keep some data without any details related to the crimes committed, for example "should not be employed")

That addresses authoritarianism more than totalitarianism. Both are authoritarian but the totalitarian state imposes a rigid ideology and invades every aspect of private life.

]]>2019-05-24T17:36:25+01:002019-05-24T17:36:25+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176094&p=15007144#p15007144Statistics: Posted by Rancid — 24 May 2019 17:36
]]>2019-05-24T12:38:15+01:002019-05-24T12:38:15+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176094&p=15007060#p15007060Pants-of-dog wrote:Who do you consider a totalitarian?

Anyone who wants:

- excessive legislation, especially criminal legislation (pretty much anything that goes beyond "malum in se" deeds that have always been crimes(crimes that result in physical harm that can be confirmed medically, or cause financial/material loss that can be evaluated) + a bunch crimes against the state or imminent threats to public safety(drunk driving, possession of weapons/explosives/etc., espionage/treason, etc.) - there could be a total of about 70-80 deeds criminalized that would more than sufficient for a perfectly functioning society

- any other kind of restriction against persons other than preventive arrest(which should only be used in exceptional circumstances)

- any punishment other than prison(for serious crimes) or fines(which should be reasonable)

- disproportionate sentencing (for example more than 5yrs for non-violent crime, more than 15yrs for anything other than murder, terrorism with deaths, treason/espionage)

- state surveillance (public cctv, lack of anonymous pre-pay services for telecom/internet, any kind of retention data, KYC-like procedures for banking or other financial services)

- the state offering public info on criminal convictions and/or keeping criminal records (with perhaps some extraordinary exceptions related to employment in security or other sensitive areas - they could keep some data without any details related to the crimes committed, for example "should not be employed")

]]>2019-05-24T01:12:38+01:002019-05-24T01:12:38+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=15006987#p15006987LaDexter wrote:Right now, we are nowhere on election day. Gary Johnson was a total failure, in part because he wasn't nearly as "libertarian" as he initially claimed.

In 2016, the Libertarian Party had a "golden opportunity," with both major parties picking nominees with over 50 negative ratings in the polls. That is likely to repeat in 2020, and we need to do better than Gary Johnson.

First Choice would be Jesse Ventura, and he needs to be pressured to make up his mind early this time, instead of sucking all the oxygen until it was too late and then not running (again). If Jesse won't run, we need to find a real candidate so that the American voter will have a real "third option" in 2020.

Aside from President, we need more candidates across the board. The American people are now almost all "hater voters," meaning they vote "against" instead of "for." A real third option and an aggressive campaign may very well open up this pathetic excuse of a "2 party" system that is railroading America into the gutter at warp speed.

Dear @LaDexter By the time the Libertarian, Constitution, and Natural Law Parties (also the Veteran Party of America)decide what they wantit's called self-government by the CONSTITUTION.

NOT DEPENDING ON PARTY.

All these groups that CLAIM to want to limit and check govt BY THE CONSTITUTIONshould unite around JUST THAT.

Let ALL Parties govern THEMSELVES and THEIR MEMBERS under variations of by laws,but don't expect parties to be able to dictate rules if that goes against the very idea ofLIMITED GOVT BY THE CONSTITUTION (not depending on legislating more and more laws for people)

The Libertarians were collaborating with Progressives on a Third Party movement toovercome the monopoly by the two party system. The Greens can also come into playwith the concepts of proportional representation by party and worker owned coops:* proportional representation by party (where the Electoral College system can beExpanded to have reps from all parties represented in every district convening to redress grievances by taxpayers and citizens complaining of govt abuses, waste and conflicts of interest)* conflict resolution and consensus decision making(so that only the policies that the public agrees on as Constitutional can be passed through Govt,and any policies with faith based biases and beliefs that cause disagreements remain privatefor people and States to resolve locally instead of pushing political beliefs through federal govt to establishcontested as unconstitutional)* local worker owned cooperatives, including cooperative health care, social programs and benefits managed, decided and funded democratically by district or state, replacing federal programs contested as unconstitutional

Bringing ALL the Third Party movements and members together who are left out of the two-party systemwould not only help unite support around democratic reforms and Constitutional restoration of limits on govt,but will bring forth the leaders who CAN represent the diversity of America instead of elite monied interests.

]]>2019-05-15T13:16:16+01:002019-05-15T13:16:16+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=15004893#p15004893Statistics: Posted by DeepSummary — 15 May 2019 13:16
]]>2019-03-14T08:05:39+01:002019-03-14T08:05:39+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=127806&p=14993793#p14993793Presently, what makes the Austrian business cycle hypothesis like the one you brought here is that both battle that sorrows purify the market from mal-ventures, and that administration.

If you have a better suggestion then do please share how can non-totalitarians or non-communists deal with totalitarians or communists?

This is a loaded question? If it is then you are tacitly admitting there is not a peaceful way of coexisting with totalitarians and communists in which case only the weakness of totalitarians could justify anything less than forceful confrontation justified on grounds of self-defence.

]]>2019-03-06T05:37:43+01:002019-03-06T05:37:43+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176094&p=14992463#p14992463SolarCross wrote:Well I am sorry you are running away from my question. I would really like a peaceful co-existence option is there was one. It is a big old world after all and an even bigger universe, so there ought to be plenty of room for all sorts of weirdoes, even ant people.

]]>2019-03-06T02:39:57+01:002019-03-06T02:39:57+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176094&p=14992433#p14992433So many on this board can’t seem to get their head around observations and topics that aren’t purely scientific; when in actual fact many of the greatest inventions and technological leaps would have seemed impossible and ‘unverifiable’ to generations of past scientists. Religion allows for the creative juices to flow. To “dream the impossible dream..to reach the unreachable star”

]]>2019-03-06T02:00:49+01:002019-03-06T02:00:49+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176094&p=14992417#p14992417Pants-of-dog wrote:I do not think you are debating in good faith.

Have a good day, SolarCross.

Well I am sorry you are running away from my question. I would really like a peaceful co-existence option is there was one. It is a big old world after all and an even bigger universe, so there ought to be plenty of room for all sorts of weirdoes, even ant people.

]]>2019-03-05T21:35:54+01:002019-03-05T21:35:54+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176094&p=14992348#p14992348SolarCross wrote:At what point have I ever suggested pacifism was an appropriate strategy for dealing with enemies?

I am interested in constructive criticism. If you have a better suggestion then do please share how can non-totalitarians or non-communists deal with totalitarians or communists? Are we supposed to just let you win?

As a side note it is interesting that you will lay all the responsibility for the killing fields of cambodia on distant "capitalist" political players who had at best a minor influence while entirely exempting the communists themselves for what they did with their own hands. It is a tacit admission that communists have no more agency than ants.

]]>2019-03-05T19:58:36+01:002019-03-05T19:58:36+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176094&p=14992329#p14992329Pants-of-dog wrote:Whatever rationale you want to use for supporting murderous dictatorships and opposing local sovereignty movements.

I guess that the Vietnamese wanting freedom from French colonialism was so awful that the only moral choice was to support child killers.

At what point have I ever suggested pacifism was an appropriate strategy for dealing with enemies?

I am interested in constructive criticism. If you have a better suggestion then do please share how can non-totalitarians or non-communists deal with totalitarians or communists? Are we supposed to just let you win?

As a side note it is interesting that you will lay all the responsibility for the killing fields of cambodia on distant "capitalist" political players who had at best a minor influence while entirely exempting the communists themselves for what they did with their own hands. It is a tacit admission that communists have no more agency than ants.

]]>2019-03-05T19:52:40+01:002019-03-05T19:52:40+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176094&p=14992326#p14992326I guess that the Vietnamese wanting freedom from French colonialism was so awful that the only moral choice was to support child killers.

]]>2019-03-05T19:46:55+01:002019-03-05T19:46:55+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176094&p=14992325#p14992325Pants-of-dog wrote:Not according to free market capitalists like Reagan and Thatcher, who supported the Khmer Rouge.

Two tribes of commie were fighting each other so realpolitik strategy suggests help the weaker of the two to prolong the fight. Divide and conquer. It would have been a different story if they were laying waste to home territory.

]]>2019-03-05T19:39:16+01:002019-03-05T19:39:16+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176094&p=14992323#p14992323Statistics: Posted by Pants-of-dog — 05 Mar 2019 18:39
]]>2019-03-05T18:48:04+01:002019-03-05T18:48:04+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176094&p=14992315#p14992315Pants-of-dog wrote:You openly support dictatorships that have imprisoned, tortured, and killed children without even a trial, simply because they share your ideology.

So, you actually do think we should let totalitarians run around doing what they want.

Also, you do not claim that only people like Pol Pot should be put into gulags. You also claim that all Marxists should be.

This is why I find your whole “we should enact totalitarian policies and imprison and torture innocents in order to protect freedom” schtick to be ironic.

So we agree that the world would be a safer place if Lenin and Pol Pot were physically prevented from doing what they want to do? Good.

]]>2019-03-05T18:42:24+01:002019-03-05T18:42:24+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176094&p=14992312#p14992312SolarCross wrote:So you are saying it is safe to just let the likes of Lenin or Pol Pot runaround unchallenged? History begs to differ.

You openly support dictatorships that have imprisoned, tortured, and killed children without even a trial, simply because they share your ideology.

So, you actually do think we should let totalitarians run around doing what they want.

Also, you do not claim that only people like Pol Pot should be put into gulags. You also claim that all Marxists should be.

This is why I find your whole “we should enact totalitarian policies and imprison and torture innocents in order to protect freedom” schtick to be ironic.

]]>2019-03-05T18:32:31+01:002019-03-05T18:32:31+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176094&p=14992311#p14992311Pants-of-dog wrote:You really seem like you want gulags and torture and executions. You mention them all the time when discussing how you would treat your ideological opponents.

So you are saying it is safe to just let the likes of Lenin or Pol Pot runaround unchallenged? History begs to differ.

]]>2019-03-05T18:28:07+01:002019-03-05T18:28:07+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176094&p=14992310#p14992310SolarCross wrote:I don't want to do that and it needn't be a "totalitarian" penal system, it could just be a wall in between, a border. Anyway wouldn't a totalitarian enjoy a totalitarian penal system?

You really seem like you want gulags and torture and executions. You mention them all the time when discussing how you would treat your ideological opponents.

]]>2019-03-05T18:22:33+01:002019-03-05T18:22:33+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176094&p=14992309#p14992309Pants-of-dog wrote:So you want to impose totalitarian penal systems because you feel attacked, or are afraid that you will be attacked?

I don't want to do that and it needn't be a "totalitarian" penal system, it could just be a wall in between, a border. Anyway wouldn't a totalitarian enjoy a totalitarian penal system?

]]>2019-03-05T17:54:19+01:002019-03-05T17:54:19+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176094&p=14992306#p14992306SolarCross wrote:The proposition of the OP is entirely separate and independent of the theory for one possible origin of totalitarian behaviors which I flung out in the course of the following discussion . Don't mix that up.

Your ant soul crap is unverifiable hogwash.

Reincarnation or soul recycling is potentially verifiable; if it happens then it should be verifiable, if it does not then it should be falsifiable.

No, reincarnation is not verifiable, and I think you do not understand what falsifiable means.

Whether or not peaceful coexistence is possible with totalitarians is an entirely separate matter from what causes totalitarianism in the first place.

]]>2019-03-05T17:48:43+01:002019-03-05T17:48:43+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176094&p=14992305#p14992305Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes it is. It is some random weirdo question that has nothing to do with real life and depends solely on some weird religious idea that no one can verify.

The only real difference is that you are using this fantasy as an excuse to impose totalitarian penal systems.

The proposition of the OP is entirely separate and independent of the theory for one possible origin of totalitarian behaviors which I flung out in the course of the following discussion . Don't mix that up.

Reincarnation or soul recycling is potentially verifiable; if it happens then it should be verifiable, if it does not then it should be falsifiable.

Whether or not peaceful coexistence is possible with totalitarians is an entirely separate matter from what causes totalitarianism in the first place.

]]>2019-03-05T17:28:26+01:002019-03-05T17:28:26+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176094&p=14992303#p14992303The only real difference is that you are using this fantasy as an excuse to impose totalitarian penal systems.

]]>2019-03-05T15:30:10+01:002019-03-05T15:30:10+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176094&p=14992290#p14992290Pants-of-dog wrote:I use the word “hypothesis” to mean “a verifiable claim that has yet to be supported or falsified by evidence”.

]]>2019-03-02T12:15:22+01:002019-03-02T12:15:22+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176094&p=14991622#p14991622Statistics: Posted by ness31 — 02 Mar 2019 11:15
]]>2019-03-02T12:04:15+01:002019-03-02T12:04:15+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176094&p=14991620#p14991620ness31 wrote:the wife of the Chinese prez? the most amazing power couple right now. you’re brave to bring them up edit - must be a President thing

It is interesting that in practice matriarchies basically never happen for humans but are ubiquitous for hive insects like ants. Yet there are some apparent humans who seem to have an instinctive expectation that matriarchies are how things ought to be and hold that the absence of them in human civilisation is some kind of terrible fault. Why should this be? The ant soul hypothesis happens to explain it.

]]>2019-03-02T11:51:55+01:002019-03-02T11:51:55+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176094&p=14991618#p14991618 the most amazing power couple right now. you’re brave to bring them up edit - must be a President thing

]]>2019-03-02T11:31:16+01:002019-03-02T11:31:16+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176094&p=14991615#p14991615Statistics: Posted by ness31 — 02 Mar 2019 10:31
]]>2019-03-02T04:30:14+01:002019-03-02T04:30:14+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176094&p=14991561#p14991561worship some leader figure in a cult of personality and also why they make out that matriarchy is the way to go despite it being wildly atypical for humans, the answer is here:

]]>2019-02-15T04:08:28+01:002019-02-15T04:08:28+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14988250#p14988250Victoribus Spolia wrote:This is true; and though any state is a violation of the NAP; not all states are predicated on the false concept of public ownership (as social contracts are); namely minarchist monarchies which assume as sacrosanct the concept of private property as such legitimizes their own authority.

@Victoribus Spolia

Well, funny thing happened a while back my friend, when I was considering your ideas on the social contract nation-state (presumably not necessarily the ''representative democracies'' alone, but all societies considered in a universal abstract sense). I understood in a sudden flash why you came to that conclusion, and so I (hopefully not personally seen as 'waffling' on these issues) had to return to the idea of the State, to preserve ideals precious to my own worldview. A man can understand why a friend is wrong, I believe, and still be friends, because the basis for true friendship is common loyalty to the same Sovereign, greater than ideology.

Since we both believe that ''reformists'' and half-measures will not cut it, then it remains to cut the floor out from under our fellows here, as to their choices. Shall we?

]]>2019-02-15T02:57:06+01:002019-02-15T02:57:06+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14988225#p14988225I choose to go into a hotel, I did not choose to be born in the United States and be assigned an SS#.

So what? Forty million Americans chose to come here from another country. You have the same option they do. You can leave. Are you claiming to be some kind of special snowflake because of the accident of your birth?

]]>2019-02-14T22:42:17+01:002019-02-14T22:42:17+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14988179#p14988179Victoribus Spolia wrote:Still too ambiguous as the acquisition of North American land was not uniform in the manner of appropriation.

If you want to show that your specific land ownership has nothing to do with the regular pattern of US colonialism, do so.

As far as I know, there are no fairly ceded lands in North America.

Once again; you argued that my land ownership required the state for both its creation and continued existence;

It does.

you then contradicted yourself when you claimed that indians had ownership even though they don't have states in these sense you are describing. Thus, ownership doesn't require a state even by your own arguments.

Since indigenous people did not own land in the capitalist sense, it did not require a state the same way capitalism does.

Instead, all the diverse indigenous land ownership systems each required different institutions to support them according to their various specific cultural contexts.

So, to be clear: I never said all land ownership requires a state. I said capitalist land ownership does.

All land ownership systems require social support in the way of several institutions that are specific to each cultural and economic system.

Since colonialism destroyed local indigenous governance and the associated supports for land ownership, indigenous land ownership were no longer socially recognized.

So, history supports my claim about economic systems being supported by the state. This, plus the fact that capitalism has never existed without a state, is evidence for my claim.

I never denied this, but it really is irrelevant, as the question is whether land ownership is dependent on a state (your claim); which requires proof FROM YOU.

I provided evidence by pointing out that capitalism has never existed without a state.

So it was impossible for any non-indigenous people to purchase land justly? Is that your claim? Yes or No?

No. If the land was purchased according to indigenous laws, then it would be a just purchase of land.

If that is the case with your land, then you are merely benefiting from state maintenance of your claim and not the creation and maintenance of your claim.

Yes it does.

Note: you have yet to provide evidence for any one of your numerous claims.

How does it support your claim that monopolies require state support?

So no evidence then?

The absence of any historical examples of capitalism existing without a state is evidence.

So you can't answer my questions then?

I probably could, if there was a benefit for me.

Now, since you cannot show how regulations are bad for business, this may well be why businessare not supporting libertarians in the USA: because it would be bad for business and business owners know it.

]]>2019-02-14T22:22:20+01:002019-02-14T22:22:20+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14988172#p14988172Drlee wrote:It is not theft if you stay in a hotel and expect to be paid.

I choose to go into a hotel, I did not choose to be born in the United States and be assigned an SS#.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, since my claim was specifically about US colonialism as a cause of the state supported system of land ownership from which you currently benefit.If you thought I was making a universally applicable argument, then you misunderstood.

Still too ambiguous as the acquisition of North American land was not uniform in the manner of appropriation.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You go to great efforts to avoid debate.

Projection; you are the one switching the burden of proof; which is fallacious.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And you cannot give an example of land ownership staying the same after the state failed.

Once again; you argued that my land ownership required the state for both its creation and continued existence; you then contradicted yourself when you claimed that indians had ownership even though they don't have states in these sense you are describing. Thus, ownership doesn't require a state even by your own arguments.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And capitalism as it currently stands has state support of land ownership, and this is the situation you currently reside in.

I never denied this, but it really is irrelevant, as the question is whether land ownership is dependent on a state (your claim); which requires proof FROM YOU.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If it was purchased in the capitalist system, then this transaction would have occurred after capitalism was enforced at gunpoint and the indigenous system of ownership was already destroyed by colonialism.

So it was impossible for any non-indigenous people to purchase land justly? Is that your claim? Yes or No?

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, it does not describe how monopolies require state support.

Yes it does.

Note: you have yet to provide evidence for any one of your numerous claims.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, if you wish to provide some sort of historical example of capitalism existing without a state, or a logical argument as to how this would work, please do so.

So no evidence then?

Pants-of-dog wrote:If these questions lead to an argument, please make it. If you are unable or unwilling to do so, I will assume you will continue in the same vein of incorrectly assuming motives on my part.Can you show how regulations are a problem for businesses?

]]>2019-02-14T21:55:11+01:002019-02-14T21:55:11+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14988167#p14988167No I don't, I am informed that Uncle Sam is going to forcibly take my money. Like I said; that is not voluntary association; that is theft.

Nonsense. It is not theft if you stay in a hotel and expect to be paid. You are free to go elsewhere where the rent is less. Perhaps Ghana will not charge you taxes. You could ask.

]]>2019-02-14T21:01:22+01:002019-02-14T21:01:22+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14988153#p14988153Victoribus Spolia wrote:Your argument is ambiguous as it assumes a universal condition which did not obtain in all places and in the same manner.

Thus your claim/accusation is unsubstantiated.

No, since my claim was specifically about US colonialism as a cause of the state supported system of land ownership from which you currently benefit.

If you thought I was making a universally applicable argument, then you misunderstood.

You are the one who made the claim and thus have the burden of proof.

Please provide such. Thanks.

You go to great efforts to avoid debate.

And you cannot give an example of land ownership staying the same after the state failed.

And capitalism as it currently stands has state support of land ownership, and this is the situation you currently reside in.

How do you know the land I live on was not purchased from indians without violence?

If it was purchased in the capitalist system, then this transaction would have occurred after capitalism was enforced at gunpoint and the indigenous aystem of ownership was already destroyed by colonialism.

Actually it does; and you have yet to provide the exceptions you claim would or could exist; either from historic precedent or logical argument.

No, it does not describe how monopolies require state support.

Please explain how.

So you have no way of demonstrating this universal claim of yours?

Got it.

Again, if you wish to provide some sort of historical example of capitalism existing without a state, or a logical argument as to how this would work, please do so.

So you are unable to answer these questions then?

If these questions lead to an argument, please make it. If you are unable or unwilling to do so, I will assume you will continue in the same vein of incorrectly assuming motives on my part.

]]>2019-02-14T20:41:14+01:002019-02-14T20:41:14+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14988150#p14988150Pants-of-dog wrote:I mentioned the fact of US colonial history, and how this created the system of land ownership from which you currently benefit.

Your argument is ambiguous as it assumes a universal condition which did not obtain in all places and in the same manner.

Thus your claim/accusation is unsubstantiated.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So you cannot give an example of land ownership staying the same after the state failed.

You are the one who made the claim and thus have the burden of proof.

Please provide such. Thanks.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Meanwhile, the history of indigenous people shows that their land claims were ignored, dismissed, no longer recognized, whatever, after colonialism.

How do you know the land I live on was not purchased from indians without violence?

Pants-of-dog wrote:That does not supoort your claim that monopolies can only exist with state support.

Actually it does; and you have yet to provide the exceptions you claim would or could exist; either from historic precedent or logical argument.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, the fact that you refuse to provide an argument is a dodge.The fact that you claim some other argument might be related is inconsequential.

Not an argument.

Your refusal to accept my challenge to debate for the seventh time is noted.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Capitalism has never existed without a state. You are free to provide a contrary example that would disprove this.

So you have no way of demonstrating this universal claim of yours?

Got it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If these questions lead to an argument, please make it.

]]>2019-02-14T20:02:37+01:002019-02-14T20:02:37+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14988144#p14988144Victoribus Spolia wrote:You have yet to substantiate this claim.

I mentioned the fact of US colonial history, and how this created the system of land ownership from which you currently benefit.

How would an answer to this question demonstrate that land ownership must necessarily cease in the absence of a state, as you have claimed (though you made the opposite claim regarding Indians?

This seems irrelevant.

In any event, you have failed to answer my question:

if a state ceased to exist; that doesn't necessarily mean ownership of land would cease then, according to your argument. Is that correct?Yes or No?

So you cannot give an example of land ownership staying the same after the state failed.

Meanwhile, the history of indigenous people shows that their land claims were ignored, dismissed, no longer recognized, whatever, after colonialism.

When I said this;

That does not supoort your claim that monopolies can only exist with state support.

You claim that there is no logical argument; I have one posted in a thread specifically dedicated to this purpose. You have just refused to debate me on it for the SEVENTH TIME!

It doesn't look like i'm the one who is dodging, given that fact.

I demostrated such via logical argument and have challenged you to debate it. You have refused. I believe the argument as its valid and apparently irrefutable

Again, the fact that you refuse to provide an argument is a dodge.

The fact that you claim some other argument might be related is inconsequential.

Another absolute statement.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Capitalism has never existed without a state.

You are free to provide a contrary example that would disprove this.

Can regulations increase costs for businesses? Yes or No?

Can regulations increase the capital needed to start a business? Yes or No?

Can regulations increase the amount of time a businessman spends on government compliance and does this take away time he could otherwise spend on serving customers? Yes or No?

If these questions lead to an argument, please make it.

Now, we have already seen how regulations can decrease costs and increase customers.

One of the costs for running a business is insurance. Complying with all applicable regulations in terms of safety can greatly reduce these costs, since the business is already operating at a verifiably safer level than one that is not covered by regulations.

]]>2019-02-14T19:52:02+01:002019-02-14T19:52:02+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14988140#p14988140Pants-of-dog wrote:As long as you understand how your current ownership of land was historically created by the state.

You have yet to substantiate this claim.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Can you give an example of land ownerhsip staying the same when the supporting state was destroyed?

How would an answer to this question demonstrate that land ownership must necessarily cease in the absence of a state, as you have claimed (though you made the opposite claim regarding Indians?

This seems irrelevant.

In any event, you have failed to answer my question:

if a state ceased to exist; that doesn't necessarily mean ownership of land would cease then, according to your argument. Is that correct?Yes or No?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Where did you describe this?

When I said this;

Victoribus Spolia wrote:Its because libertarianism is NOT good for business. Libertarians oppose state-funded and supported monopolies; which most corporations basically are.Libertarians also oppose things like patents and copyrights laws; which are likewise the basis for most corporate power.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. Instead, you are refusing to provide an argument in this thread with your usual dodge of alluding to another thread.

You claim that there is no logical argument; I have one posted in a thread specifically dedicated to this purpose. You have just refused to debate me on it for the SEVENTH TIME!

It doesn't look like i'm the one who is dodging, given that fact.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Capitalism has never existed without a state.

Another absolute statement.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you want to believe it would, feel free.

I demostrated such via logical argument and have challenged you to debate it. You have refused. I believe the argument as its valid and apparently irrefutable.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Another her way that regulations help businesses is by expanding their customer base. Those companies that have barrier free (i.e. accessible to people using wheelchairs and other mobility devices) designs can also serve handicapped people who would otherwise not be able to enter (let alone shop at) these stores.

Can regulations increase costs for businesses? Yes or No?

Can regulations increase the capital needed to start a business? Yes or No?

Can regulations increase the amount of time a businessman spends on government compliance and does this take away time he could otherwise spend on serving customers? Yes or No?

]]>2019-02-14T19:10:07+01:002019-02-14T19:10:07+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14988127#p14988127Victoribus Spolia wrote:They are in the interrogative, so that would require you to answer them as they are questions; your argument resting on how you answer them.

Not an argument.

As long as you understand how your current ownership of land was historically created by the state.

So if a state ceased to exist; that doesn't necessarily mean ownership of land would cease then, according to your argument. Is that correct? Yes or No?

Can you give an example of land ownerhsip staying the same when the supporting state was destroyed?

The settlement of the USA actually shows how land ownerhsip changed dramatically because of the destruction and replacement of the state.

You don't know what an analogy is?

Actually I did, as I showed that the mechanisms of their existence are all predicated on a state.

Where did you describe this?

So you are refusing to debate for the seventh time my logical argument demonstrating the Ancap thesis as absolutely and universally true?

No. Instead, you are refusing to provide an argument in this thread with your usual dodge of alluding to another thread.

The definition is my proof; there is nothing in it which requires a state, and the state itself is a contradiction to the definition (as it is niether privatley owned or freely exchanged); thus, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise.

You made a universal claim; which requires either universal posteori knowledge or an a priori argument. Do you have any? Yes or No?

Capitalism has never existed without a state. If you want to believe it would, feel free.

Anecdotal evidence. Invalid.

Unless you agree to accept my contrary anecdotal evidence.

Another her way that regulations help businesses is by expanding their customer base. Those companies that have barrier free (i.e. accessible to people using wheelchairs and other mobility devices) designs can also serve handicapped people who would otherwise not be able to enter (let alone shop at) these stores.

In 1995 there was a Democrat President and a Democrat Senate majority. Republicans are lying hypocrites when they talk about fiscal conservatism. Most Republicans have little interest in government budget surplices and are fine with increasing deficits for military expenditure, tax cuts, farm subsides and a host of other things that take their fancy at the time.

]]>2019-02-14T18:57:54+01:002019-02-14T18:57:54+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14988124#p14988124Pants-of-dog wrote:Are these questions supposed to be a rebuttal to the historical facts I already outlined?

They are in the interrogative, so that would require you to answer them as they are questions; your argument resting on how you answer them.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If I held ancaps to this standard, we would never be able to discuss their ideology.

Not an argument.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I never said land ownership required a state. I said capitalist land ownership as it exists now requires a state.

So if a state ceased to exist; that doesn't necessarily mean ownership of land would cease then, according to your argument. Is that correct? Yes or No?

Pants-of-dog wrote:What exactly is the analogy?

You don't know what an analogy is?

a·nal·o·gy[əˈnaləjē]

NOUNa comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification."an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies" · [more]a correspondence or partial similarity."the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"synonyms:link · relationship · relation · relatedness · interrelation · interrelatedness · interconnection · interdependence · association · attachment · bond · tie · tie-in · [more]a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects."works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"logica process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects.synonyms:similarity · parallel · parallelism · correspondence · likeness · resemblance · correlation · relation · kinship · equivalence · similitude · symmetry · homologylinguisticsa process by which new words and inflections are created on the basis of regularities in the form of existing ones.biologythe resemblance of function between organs that have a different evolutionary origin.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, you made the claim that monopolies cannot happen without the state. You have not supported this with evidence or logic and anything else.

Actually I did, as I showed that the mechanisms of their existence are all predicated on a state.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No.

So you are refusing to debate for the seventh time my logical argument demonstrating the Ancap thesis as absolutely and universally true?

Pants-of-dog wrote:And you have no proof it does not. Again this seems like an argument from ignorance.

The definition is my proof; there is nothing in it which requires a state, and the state itself is a contradiction to the definition (as it is niether privatley owned or freely exchanged); thus, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise.

You made a universal claim; which requires either universal posteori knowledge or an a priori argument. Do you have any? Yes or No?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Now, do businesses profit from regulations? In my experience, they do. When I worked for a contractor, we often avoided having to correct certain “deficiencies”. This was because the tradespeople had installed the materials as the code dictated, and ignored the architect’s drawings when the drawings were not up to code. Those regulations saved us thousands of dollars.

]]>2019-02-14T18:48:04+01:002019-02-14T18:48:04+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14988122#p14988122Victoribus Spolia wrote:Do you have evidence that my specific plot was owned by a native? or that ALL specific lots in the United States were specifically owned by specific natives?

Likewise, what of lots that were previously owned by Indians but were purchased by settlers?

Do you have evidence showing that this NEVER happened?

Likewise, in my part of the country; Indian tribes allied themselves with white colonial powers against other Indian tribes who likewise allied themselves with other colonial powers. What happens when one side wins? Does that mean that the Indians on the winning side were colonist expropriators? Or if they secured their original lands because of their alliance, does this now make their land claims illegitimate?

Are these questions supposed to be a rebuttal to the historical facts I already outlined?

Let me know when you have some actual argument and not a bunch of unsupported and ambiguous nonsense.

If I held ancaps to this standard, we would never be able to discuss their ideology.

How could they own land without a state? If these were non-capitalist societies; or pre-capitalist societies (According to Marxism); then they had no states to enforce private property, and if ownership requires a state, then according to your argument these indigenous people didn't really own anything.

If they didn't own their land, then nothing could have been stolen according to your own argument.

I never said land ownership required a state. I said capitalist land ownership as it exists now requires a state.

And indigenous land ownership systems also required institutional support in terms of recognition of whose land it was, inheritance, law enforcement, etc.

Its not a metaphor, its an analogical question. Answer my question.

What exactly is the analogy?

Not an argument; you have failed to support your claim.

Again, you made the claim that monopolies cannot happen without the state. You have not supported this with evidence or logic and anything else.

I have one and I challenged you to debate it six previous times and have mentioned your by name in that thread. I am now challenging you to debate my argument in that thread for THE SEVENTH TIME: Do you accept or yield?

No.

You can briefly explain in this thread how capitalism can occur without a state.

The definition does not require a state; and the argument you are making is a causal argument. Causation can only be demonstrated from an absolute knowledge sufficient to established the relationship as necessary. However, this requires that you either have a universal knowledge of all particulars (omniscience) or a logical argument (a priori) demonstrating that this is the case.

If you have no argument; then you have no proof in this regards that capitalism requires a state.

And you have no proof it does not.

Again this seems like an argument from ignorance.

—————————-

Now, do businesses profit from regulations?

In my experience, they do. When I worked for a contractor, we often avoided having to correct certain “deficiencies”. This was because the tradespeople had installed the materials as the code dictated, and ignored the architect’s drawings when the drawings were not up to code.

]]>2019-02-14T18:33:14+01:002019-02-14T18:33:14+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14988118#p14988118Pants-of-dog wrote:Your specific land ownership was created by the state during the colonial era of the US. This is historical fact. Previous to European settlement, the land was owned by indigenous people. Land ownership forcibly changed hands when the USA, as a state, was forced on indigenous people and previous agreements about land ownership were discarded, and the land was given to settlers.

Do you have evidence that my specific plot was owned by a native? or that ALL specific lots in the United States were specifically owned by specific natives?

Likewise, what of lots that were previously owned by Indians but were purchased by settlers?

Do you have evidence showing that this NEVER happened?

Likewise, in my part of the country; Indian tribes allied themselves with white colonial powers against other Indian tribes who likewise allied themselves with other colonial powers. What happens when one side wins? Does that mean that the Indians on the winning side were colonist expropriators? Or if they secured their original lands because of their alliance, does this now make their land claims illegitimate?

Let me know when you have some actual argument and not a bunch of unsupported and ambiguous nonsense.

Pants-of-dog wrote:the land was owned by indigenous people.

How could they own land without a state? If these were non-capitalist societies; or pre-capitalist societies (According to Marxism); then they had no states to enforce private property, and if ownership requires a state, then according to your argument these indigenous people didn't really own anything.

If they didn't own their land, then nothing could have been stolen according to your own argument.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Dramatic metaphors aside, you do choose to use roads that are paid for and maintained by the state.

Its not a metaphor, its an analogical question. Answer my question.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yeah, I could not think of any examples of capitalism without a state either.

Not an argument; you have failed to support your claim.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Nor could I think of a logical argument for a capitalist system independent of a state either.

I have one and I challenged you to debate it six previous times and have mentioned your by name in that thread. I am now challenging you to debate my argument in that thread for THE SEVENTH TIME: Do you accept or yield?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Now, you seem to be arguing that capitalism can exist without a state because we have no proof otherwise. This seems like an argument from ignorance.

The definition does not require a state; and the argument you are making is a causal argument. Causation can only be demonstrated from an absolute knowledge sufficient to established the relationship as necessary. However, this requires that you either have a universal knowledge of all particulars (omniscience) or a logical argument (a priori) demonstrating that this is the case.

If you have no argument; then you have no proof in this regards that capitalism requires a state.

]]>2019-02-14T18:17:22+01:002019-02-14T18:17:22+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14988115#p14988115Victoribus Spolia wrote:Please provide evidence for the claim that my land ownership would necessarily cease without a state.

Likewise, provide evidence for the other claim that land-ownership is CREATED by the state.

Define ownership.

Your specific land ownership was created by the state during the colonial era of the US. This is historical fact. Previous to European settlement, the land was owned by indigenous people. Land ownership forcibly changed hands when the USA, as a state, was forced on indigenous people and previous agreements about land ownership were discarded, and the land was given to settlers.

And you benefit from this, because your ownership of the land is legally recognized by the same state that created (by ethnically cleansing the previous owners) the current system of land ownership, and maintains it with things like laws and contracts and cops.

And slaves chose to drink the water they were served by their masters, does this make them no longer slaves?

Dramatic metaphors aside, you do choose to use roads that are paid for and maintained by the state.

Not an argument.

NOTE: you have failed to provide evidence for your claims.

Again, you made the claim that monopolies cannot happen without the state. You have not supported this with evidence or logic and anything else.

1. That is not evidence that capitalism requires a state, for even if it were true it would only show correlation, not causation. Hence, it would not be proof that capitalism requires a state.

2. Please provide evidence for the claim that EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE of capitalism existed with a state, given the definition of capitalism.

A universal claim requires either universal knowledge (omniscience) or a demonstration from a logical axiom that is universally true a priori.

If you have neither, then your argument is invalid as stated.

Yeah, I could not think of any examples of capitalism without a state either.

Nor could I think of a logical argument for a capitalist system independent of a state either.

Now, you seem to be arguing that capitalism can exist without a state because we have no proof otherwise. This seems like an argument from ignorance.

So no evidence then? Thought so.

And if businesses are not supporting libertarians in any significant manner, this does provide some support for the idea that libertarianism is not actually good for business.

Let us take the idea of regulations. Libertarians think these are as evil as single moms and Hitler. I would argue that regulations are actually good for business, and libertarians are shooting themselves in the proverbial foot on this one.

]]>2019-02-14T18:01:33+01:002019-02-14T18:01:33+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14988112#p14988112Pants-of-dog wrote:It creates and maintains the system of land ownership that you use to claim your right to your land.

Please provide evidence for the claim that my land ownership would necessarily cease without a state.

Likewise, provide evidence for the other claim that land-ownership is CREATED by the state.

Define ownership.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You could choose not to use the roads. But instead you choose to use them. You almost certainly drive more often than i do.

And slaves chose to drink the water they were served by their masters, does this make them no longer slaves?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Exactly. You have no evidence or any ither supoort for your claim that monopolies require the state. Thus, I will assume it is unsupported and dismiss it,

Not an argument.

NOTE: you have failed to provide evidence for your claims.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Every single instance of capitalism that ever existed did so with state support.

1. That is not evidence that capitalism requires a state, for even if it were true it would only show correlation, not causation. Hence, it would not be proof that capitalism requires a state.

2. Please provide evidence for the claim that EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE of capitalism existed with a state, given the definition of capitalism.

A universal claim requires either universal knowledge (omniscience) or a demonstration from a logical axiom that is universally true a priori.

If you have neither, then your argument is invalid as stated.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, they are definitely not supporting libertarians enough to make any sort of viable or realistic challenge to any congressperson or senator.

]]>2019-02-14T17:26:46+01:002019-02-14T17:26:46+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14988105#p14988105Victoribus Spolia wrote:What does the government have to do with my land?

It creates and maintains the system of land ownership that you use to claim your right to your land.

Also, without a state supported henocide and/or ethnic cleansing, the land would still belong to its actual indigenous owners.

I have the choice to use a private road? NOPE.

Once again, the fact that the task-master gives you water doesn't make you any less a slave.

You could choose not to use the roads. But instead you choose to use them. You almost certainly drive more often than i do.

So no evidence then?

Got it.

Exactly. You have no evidence or any ither supoort for your claim that monopolies require the state. Thus, I will assume it is unsupported and dismiss it,

Please provide evidence for this claim; I agree that the capitalism market has the state involved in it, and that crony corporations couldn't exist without a state, but I see no argument for why capitalism requires a state.

this requires proof.

The definition of capitalism does not require a state. Definitions and logic are not imaginary.

Is there an argument here?

Every single instance of capitalism that ever existed did so with state support.

So you are withdrawing your stupid question then? Good.

Please provide evidence for this claim, Thanks.

Well, they are definitely not supporting libertarians enough to make any sort of viable or realistic challenge to any congressperson or senator.

]]>2019-02-14T17:08:09+01:002019-02-14T17:08:09+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14988101#p14988101Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you being forced to own land

What does the government have to do with my land?

Pants-of-dog wrote:drive down roads?

I have the choice to use a private road? NOPE.

Once again, the fact that the task-master gives you water doesn't make you any less a slave.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Instead, you can provide some sort of supprt for your claim that monopolies cannot exist without the state.

So no evidence then?

Got it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And capitalist enterprises profit when the state is involved,

Often times yes, and disproportionately favoring the rich, the corrupt, and the incompetent.

Pants-of-dog wrote:and capitalism (as it currently works) requires the state.

Please provide evidence for this claim; I agree that the capitalism market has the state involved in it, and that crony corporations couldn't exist without a state, but I see no argument for why capitalism requires a state.

this requires proof.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The only capitalism that does not require the state is your imaginary one.

The definition of capitalism does not require a state. Definitions and logic are not imaginary.

Is there an argument here?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Small businesses can also support politicians and policies. Obviously, snall businesses are not supporting libertarians either.

So you are withdrawing your stupid question then? Good.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Small businesses can also support politicians and policies. Obviously, snall businesses are not supporting libertarians either.

Thats like saying I am benefiting from slavery because my task masker gives me water and some gruel now and then.

Are you being forced to own land and drive down roads?

Please give an example of a monopoly existing without a state. Thanks.

No. Instead, you can provide some sort of supprt for your claim that monopolies cannot exist without the state.

Correct.

So the actual system is not pure capitalism, but a mixed one including something not freely exchanged and privately owned (the state) and whatever its attempting to corrupt (the rest of the market; "capitalism").

And capitalist enterprises profit when the state is involved, and capitalism (as it currently works) requires the state.

The only capitalism that does not require the state is your imaginary one.

Yeah, but you didn't say all businesses regardless of size are bankrolling political parties, you specifically referred to corporate backing.

I addressed this specifically, and you followed up with a question pertaining to ALL businesses.

Regarding that much broader and more ambiguous question, I asked for some clarifications. Without them I have no way to answer your question because I have no idea what you are talking about.

Small businesses can also support politicians and policies. Obviously, snall businesses are not supporting libertarians either.

]]>2019-02-14T16:42:50+01:002019-02-14T16:42:50+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14988092#p14988092Pants-of-dog wrote:You are already using and benefiting from government services.

Not voluntarily.

Thats like saying I am benefiting from slavery because my task masker gives me water and some gruel now and then.

Pants-of-dog wrote:As far as I can tell, there is no reason for monopolies not to happen in Magical Anarchiland.

Please give an example of a monopoly existing without a state. Thanks.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The defineion might not include the state,

.

Correct.

but the actual system that we see every day in reality requires the state.

So the actual system is not pure capitalism, but a mixed one including something not freely exchanged and privately owned (the state) and whatever its attempting to corrupt (the rest of the market; "capitalism").

Pants-of-dog wrote:I don’t know.

You are the one saying that this is the reason why businesses do not support libertarians.

Yeah, but you didn't say all businesses regardless of size are bankrolling political parties, you specifically referred to corporate backing.

I addressed this specifically, and you followed up with a question pertaining to ALL businesses.

Regarding that much broader and more ambiguous question, I asked for some clarifications. Without them I have no way to answer your question because I have no idea what you are talking about.

]]>2019-02-14T16:32:30+01:002019-02-14T16:32:30+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14988089#p14988089Victoribus Spolia wrote:Isn't that begging the question? I am critiquing the social contract's presumption of tacit consent, so appealing to the chief developer of the concept's definition of tacit consent is a circular argument.

You are already using and benefiting from government services.

Praxeology can tell us as its based axioms derived a priori.

I don't need to have universal knowledge of every historic example to know that A cannot be Non-A.

As far as I can tell, there is no reason for monopolies not to happen in Magical Anarchiland.

The definition of capitalism does not require a state. You have failed to address this in a different thread.

The defineion might not include the state, but the actual system that we see every day in reality requires the state.

Currently or necessarily? Directly or indirectly?

I don’t know.

You are the one saying that this is the reason why businesses do not support libertarians.

Isn't that begging the question? I am critiquing the social contract's presumption of tacit consent, so appealing to the chief developer of the concept's definition of tacit consent is a circular argument.

Pants-of-dog wrote:We have no idea if monopolies can exist in fanciful ancap land, since it has never existed and is solely a thought experiment.

Praxeology can tell us as its based axioms derived a priori.

I don't need to have universal knowledge of every historic example to know that A cannot be Non-A.

]]>2019-02-14T16:15:50+01:002019-02-14T16:15:50+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14988084#p14988084Victoribus Spolia wrote:I would definitely say the largest and most powerful companies and corporations definitely do. Which is part of my critique of statism.

Sure, bug businesses profit from capitalism. We all know this.

What I was asking was: do almost all companies (regardless of size) benefit from state funding, state support, patents, copyright laws and other state interventions in the free market?

Ultimately a stateless free-market society will be far more decentralized and both individual land-holding and business size would be far more restricted by natural conditions. There are no mega monopoly corporations in ancapistan; they can't exist because the mechanisms simply aren't there for them as they exist under super-states like we have today.

We have no idea if monopolies can exist in fanciful ancap land, since it has never existed and is solely a thought experiment.

You missed the point; the assumption of the social contract is that you have the privilege to vote in a representative government and receive its protection, but in exchange you must sacrifice total autonomy and be subject to taxation; its a general principle.

If "Liberalism" was consistent with the NAP; then I would have had to have voluntarily and willfully agreed to be taxed (which is not the case); and if not, I should be able to refuse paying taxes without any legal ramifications (which is not the case). If I am forced to pay taxes, that is by definition a violation of the NAP (unless I willfully and consciously agreed to this arrangement in explicit and contractual terms).

No I don't, I am informed that Uncle Sam is going to forcibly take my money. Like I said; that is not voluntary association; that is theft.

If a thief gives you notice that he is going to steal from you, that doesn't make it any less of an act of thievery.

Yes, If I sell you something grown on my own land, the State demands a cut under penalty of violence.

I cannot opt out of that except by being illegal in my activities; if you wish to buy or sell, you are held at gunpoint by the state. That is a violation of the NAP.

You can have laws without a social contract, this has been the case for most of human history.

I don't want them, nor did I agree to be part of this society; I never signed a document, I never explicitly assented to this arrangement.

Believe me, I am doing everything I can; following the practice of Agorism.

In any event, thanks for the convo.

Agreed.

This is true; and though any state is a violation of the NAP; not all states are predicated on the false concept of public ownership (as social contracts are); namely minarchist monarchies which assume as sacrosanct the concept of private property as such legitimizes their own authority.

]]>2019-02-14T16:20:46+01:002019-02-14T15:26:42+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14988077#p14988077Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you saying that almost all companies benefit from state funding, state support, patents, copyright laws and other state interventions in the free market?

I would definitely say the largest and most powerful companies and corporations definitely do. Which is part of my critique of statism, for statism is what enables corporations to get as big as they do and its statism that often prevent these organizations from failing when that is what nature would have dictated.

Small businesses and farms by contrast are almost always hindered by state regulations and requirements which larger corporations have no problem with as they can afford them, and often helped write them in the first place. I am running into this myself as I am trying to start a meat business, my #1 problem by far is the government, bar none. Everything else is relatively easy in comparison.

Ultimately a stateless free-market society will be far more decentralized and both individual land-holding and business size would be far more restricted by natural conditions. There are no mega monopoly corporations in ancapistan; they can't exist because the mechanisms simply aren't there for them as they exist under super-states like we have today.

B0ycey wrote:You have to pay taxes in America to vote? Even the unemployed can vote in the UK. So if there is an association with taxes and voting in America it doesn't mean there has to be. A Libertarian party could even campaign against this. So again I see no NAP violation in Liberal politics.

You missed the point; the assumption of the social contract is that you have the privilege to vote in a representative government and receive its protection, but in exchange you must sacrifice total autonomy and be subject to taxation; its a general principle.

If "Liberalism" was consistent with the NAP; then I would have had to have voluntarily and willfully agreed to be taxed (which is not the case); and if not, I should be able to refuse paying taxes without any legal ramifications (which is not the case). If I am forced to pay taxes, that is by definition a violation of the NAP (unless I willfully and consciously agreed to this arrangement in explicit and contractual terms).

B0ycey wrote:Again you know you will be taxed when you agree to work and yet you still work.

No I don't, I am informed that Uncle Sam is going to forcibly take my money. Like I said; that is not voluntary association; that is theft.

If a thief gives you notice that he is going to steal from you, that doesn't make it any less of an act of thievery.

B0ycey wrote:Is that forced on you?

Yes, If I sell you something grown on my own land, the State demands a cut under penalty of violence.

I cannot opt out of that except by being illegal in my activities; if you wish to buy or sell, you are held at gunpoint by the state. That is a violation of the NAP.

B0ycey wrote:Laws are part of the social contract.

You can have laws without a social contract, this has been the case for most of human history.

B0ycey wrote:They give you protections that you agree to by being part of society.

I don't want them, nor did I agree to be part of this society; I never signed a document, I never explicitly assented to this arrangement.

B0ycey wrote:Nonetheless rather than argue over a minor issue, I will state that I think you are still wrong but will say I can at least see your point of view and where you are going with this when before I thought you just confused oxymoron with faux.

Believe me, I am doing everything I can; following the practice of Agorism.

In any event, thanks for the convo.

annatar1914 wrote:And Reformism as we should all know by now does not work, entryism into government and political organizations to affect slow and meaningful change, peaceful and gradual, according to one's ideology. Any Ideology. Because as has been pointed out, human nature is what it is.

Agreed.

annatar1914 wrote:But not every ideology of the State believes in the forms of Democracy that do not possess the substance of Democracy (that is, true earthly Liberty) anyway.

This is true; and though any state is a violation of the NAP; not all states are predicated on the false concept of public ownership (as social contracts are); namely minarchist monarchies which assume as sacrosanct the concept of private property as such legitimizes their own authority.

]]>2019-02-14T04:55:52+01:002019-02-14T04:55:52+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14988009#p14988009And Reformism as we should all know by now does not work, entryism into government and political organizations to affect slow and meaningful change, peaceful and gradual, according to one's ideology. Any Ideology. Because as has been pointed out, human nature is what it is.

]]>2019-02-13T21:55:02+01:002019-02-13T21:55:02+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987891#p14987891Victoribus Spolia wrote:When did I ever agree to being taxed in exchange for voting (which is a lie anyway); and when was I ever given the choice to join society? The answer is: NEVER.

You have to pay taxes in America to vote? Even the unemployed can vote in the UK. So if there is an association with taxes and voting in America it doesn't mean there has to be. A Libertarian party could even campaign against this. So again I see no NAP violation in Liberal politics.

As for society, your choice is to exclude yourself from it. Not to agree to join up for it.

I never agreed to be taxed, I was never asked and I wasn't given the choice. Working is not a form of assent except to my employer. Don't be ridiculous.

We are going around in circles aren't we? Again you know you will be taxed when you agree to work and yet you still work. Is that forced on you? If you don't like that consider being a gypsy. This is a choice.

Yes it is, if I never made a voluntary agreement to be taxed, then forcing me to pay taxes under threat of force is a violation of the NAP.

Your claim is some idea of involuntary consent; which is a fiction.

If I fuck you while you are sleeping, you are not consenting just because you didn't object to the arrangement or didn't realized you were being fucked; your argument implies that consent would have existed in such a case.

Same thing with taxation in a social contract. Its not voluntary and involuntary consent is just as absurd as the example I gave.

I am repeating myself aren't I? Laws are part of the social contract. They give you protections that you agree to by being part of society. Taxes are part of society also. So if you don't like them move. Apply to migrate. Buy a tent and head to the hills. Become homeless. Do something but do not pay any taxes you refuse to pay if you are dead set against them. As long as you are treated equal I see no violation of the NAP with anything you write. They are just complaints but no action to do anything about them on your part.

Nonetheless rather than argue over a minor issue, I will state that I think you are still wrong but will say I can at least see your point of view and where you are going with this when before I thought you just confused oxymoron with faux.

]]>2019-02-13T20:47:42+01:002019-02-13T20:47:42+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987883#p14987883B0ycey wrote:You agree to it by being part of society.

When did I ever agree to being taxed in exchange for voting (which is a lie anyway); and when was I ever given the choice to join society? The answer is: NEVER.

B0ycey wrote:Again you could become an outlaw. They are your choices.

Obviously.

B0ycey wrote:This is true. But the government only get taxes from people who want to work and as such are prepared to be taxed by doing so. You on the otherhand can choose not to work and not get taxed. As such by working you agree to be taxed. So again not against NAP.

I never agreed to be taxed, I was never asked and I wasn't given the choice. Working is not a form of assent except to my employer. Don't be ridiculous.

B0ycey wrote:So again not against NAP.

Yes it is, if I never made a voluntary agreement to be taxed, then forcing me to pay taxes under threat of force is a violation of the NAP.

Your claim is some idea of involuntary consent; which is a fiction.

If I fuck you while you are sleeping, you are not consenting just because you didn't object to the arrangement or didn't realized you were being fucked; your argument implies that consent would have existed in such a case.

Same thing with taxation in a social contract. Its not voluntary and involuntary consent is just as absurd as the example I gave.

]]>2019-02-13T20:17:42+01:002019-02-13T20:17:42+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987880#p14987880Victoribus Spolia wrote:That's absurd. I never agreed to this contract, so its not really a contract at all.

You agree to it by being part of society. Again you could become an outlaw. They are your choices.

This isn't true either; because they only get these funds through taxation; which are theft.

This is true. But the government only get taxes from people who want to work and as such are prepared to be taxed by doing so. You on the otherhand can choose not to work and not get taxed. As such by working you agree to be taxed. So again not against NAP.

No, I instead become self-sufficient and avoid government inasmuch as its possible for me to do so without jeopardizing my family by exposing them to direct harm at the hands of an angry state.

Read the link on Agorism to get an idea what this entails.

I am only addressing the Oxymoron suggestion here. I am very aware of your belief.

]]>2019-02-13T20:04:15+01:002019-02-13T20:04:15+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987875#p14987875B0ycey wrote:Hence by being part of the social contract you by default give consent to be taxed.

That's absurd. I never agreed to this contract, so its not really a contract at all.

B0ycey wrote:Again a Liberal Party could promote state aid and not violate the NAP under your argument to give the idle a free pass without any aggression being needed.

This isn't true either; because they only get these funds through taxation; which are theft.

B0ycey wrote:You could become just like Anarchist23 and become a drain on society.

No, I instead become self-sufficient and avoid government inasmuch as its possible for me to do so without jeopardizing my family by exposing them to direct harm at the hands of an angry state.

]]>2019-02-13T20:00:04+01:002019-02-13T20:00:04+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987873#p14987873Victoribus Spolia wrote:This was ALSO ADDRESSED under point #2 of my original post where I specifically answer that objection.

Namely, I never consented to this arrangement or social contract; nor would giving up my voting privileges allow me to no longer pay taxes anyway; hence I am being forced to an obligation that I did not voluntarily assent to.

Here was my argument from my original post (that you claimed to have read):

Well my point was that you could become an outlaw and not pay taxes. You couldn't then rely on the state to look after you. Hence by being part of the social contract you by default give consent to be taxed.

Nonetheless let us look at this another way. You could become just like Anarchist23 and become a drain on society. Claim all the benefits the state would provide and not pay a penny in taxes that you don't agree to as you do so. This is legal but perhaps not moral. Again a Liberal Party could promote state aid and not violate the NAP under your argument to give the idle a free pass without any aggression being needed.

]]>2019-02-13T19:47:32+01:002019-02-13T19:47:32+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987872#p14987872B0ycey wrote:By being part of the social contract means you give consent for the state to tax you.

This was ALSO ADDRESSED under point #2 of my original post where I specifically answer that objection.

Namely, I never consented to this arrangement or social contract; nor would giving up my voting privileges allow me to no longer pay taxes anyway; hence I am being forced to an obligation that I did not voluntarily assent to.

Here was my argument from my original post (that you claimed to have read):

Victoribus Spolia wrote:For instance, the federal government taxes me at gunpoint, if I don't pay taxes they will make me do so under threat of force. This is a violation of the NAP and therefore invalid.Now, you might object that I can vote and am therefore complicit in this thievery via representation;however, I never agreed to this arrangement, nor did my father, nor did his father's father. We are born under this obligation and must abide by it against our will or consent. Indeed, if it were truly voluntary and consistent with the NAP, then we could surrender our privilege to vote in exchange for no longer having to pay taxes; however, we all know what would happen then now don't we? Everyone would surrender their voting privileges in order to be tax free and the government would entirely collapse.

B0ycey wrote:If you don't agree to this, your alternative option is to become an outlaw

]]>2019-02-13T19:43:59+01:002019-02-13T19:43:59+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987871#p14987871Victoribus Spolia wrote:I did address this under point #2 in my post on this, but I will answer your question briefly anyway;

Because its not voluntary; if I refuse to pay taxes they will make me by force (violating the NAP).

Libertarianism's core doctrine of the NAP implies that all exchanges/agreements be made voluntarily.

Perhaps you are reading some form of doctrine I am not familiar with. The NAP from what I am aware of is to do with equality, liberty and rights. By being part of the social contract means you give consent for the state to tax you. If you don't agree to this, your alternative option is to become an outlaw. Either way, whilst you remain a citizen, a Libertarian Party has a obligation to tax you and as such is not an oxymoron.

]]>2019-02-13T19:41:30+01:002019-02-13T19:41:30+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987868#p14987868Pants-of-dog wrote:If libertarianism was so good for business, whu does business not support it?

Isn't this obvious?

Its because libertarianism is NOT good for business. Libertarians oppose state-funded and supported monopolies; which most corporations basically are.

Libertarians also oppose things like patents and copyrights laws; which are likewise the basis for most corporate power.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This thread seems to be about libertarians working within the current liberal system.

Yes; just like there are so-called socialists who think they can work within the system to implement Marx's vision democratically; as if the bougie-controlled state would just allow socialism to happen.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Speculative musings about libertarian purists does not seem to be relevant.

Whatever.

Why you even care is the only thing I'd like to speculate on, as its quite beyond me.

]]>2019-02-13T19:37:37+01:002019-02-13T19:37:37+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987866#p14987866This thread seems to be about libertarians working within the current liberal system. Speculative musings about libertarian purists does not seem to be relevant.

What I find interesting is that the existing Libertarian party in the US does not seem to receive enough corporate funding to make a difference. If libertarianism was so good for business, whu does business not support it?

]]>2019-02-13T19:30:25+01:002019-02-13T19:30:25+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987861#p14987861Victoribus Spolia wrote:This is simply untrue, if your core value is that its immoral to violate the NAP, and if being a part of the state REQUIRES you to implicitly support such, then that means that the idea of the party is oxymoronic, as its predicated on an inherent contradiction.

Let me sum this up for you; barring 100% voluntary consent to do so; all taxation as it currently stands is a violation of libertarian values; thus, a libertarian party running on anything other than requiring 100% voluntary assent for every single tax, or banning such altogether, is violating its own principle of the NAP. PERIOD.

You couldn't get a better example of an oxymoron, even from a textbook.

I have no issue with anyone defending their position. If you don't, who will. But I digest...

]]>2019-02-13T19:24:44+01:002019-02-13T19:24:44+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987858#p14987858Pants-of-dog wrote:This whole debate seems to be about the definition of libertarianism; i.e. the role of the state.

Its not unlike the dispute between revolutionary socialists and Fabians; in point of fact.

I feel the same way about a libertarian party as most revolutionary socialists feel about fabians; they are at best misguided pursuers of futility; or at worst they aren't really socialists at all.

Pants-of-dog wrote:What you see as an oxymoron seems to be merely a pragmatic concession to reality.

Concessions in the name of pragmatism can still be contradictions.

That being said, I don't see futile endeavors as all that pragmatic. There is nothing "Strategically valuable" about wasting one's time and violating your cardinal value in the pursuance thereof.

]]>2019-02-13T19:20:44+01:002019-02-13T19:20:44+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987857#p14987857This whole debate seems to be about the definition of libertarianism; i.e. the role of the state.

What you see as an oxymoron seems to be merely a pragmatic concession to reality.

]]>2019-02-13T19:20:55+01:002019-02-13T19:19:51+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987856#p14987856B0ycey wrote:As Liberal Party can exist with its values, it cannot be a contradiction and as such never an oxymoron.

This is simply untrue, if your core value is that its immoral to violate the NAP, and if being a part of the state REQUIRES you to implicitly support such, then that means that the idea of the party is oxymoronic, as its predicated on an inherent contradiction.

Let me sum this up for you; barring 100% voluntary consent to do so; all taxation as it currently stands is a violation of libertarian values; thus, a libertarian party running on anything other than requiring 100% voluntary assent for every single tax, or banning such altogether, is violating its own principle of the NAP. PERIOD.

You couldn't get a better example of an oxymoron, even from a textbook.

B0ycey wrote:I didn't critique your post VS because most of your points are accurate. In fact, I would love to copy and paste them to make an entirely new thread on why a political party essentially operates the same way as their opposition when elected into office because they need to win votes to keep power.

I appreciate the compliment, and I do think that is an interesting topic as well, I am just defending what I wrote that's all.

Every nation has to have debt because something needs to hold the liability to keep Capitalism functioning. But it isn't essential to spend more than your tax receipts to get into power. Not that this matters, I wasn't addressing this point either.

I didn't see any critique of my point on this whatsoever.

My strongest point in my post on this, was #2. That representative government is itself a contradiction of Libertarianism's cardinal doctrine (the NAP).

You never discussed this at all, and that point demonstrates without a doubt that a Libertarian political party is an oxymoron.

I didn't critique your post VS because most of your points are accurate. In fact, I would love to copy and paste them to make an entirely new thread on why a political party essentially operates the same way as their opposition when elected into office because they need to win votes to keep power. But that doesn't stop a Libertarian Party having Liberal values, a liberal manifesto and Liberal policies. As Liberal Party can exist with its values, it cannot be a contradiction and as such never an oxymoron. But to maintain or win an election is completely different to pledges FYI.

]]>2019-02-13T19:05:53+01:002019-02-13T19:05:53+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987852#p14987852Pants-of-dog wrote:Primarily so that they could take votes away from the two main parties.

That would be nice to see.

Pants-of-dog wrote:There would also be a significant increase in world peace if the US adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy.

That would also be nice.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I would like it if the US had a viable Libertarian party.

Won't happen, and it wouldn't really be libertarian anyway, it would be a minarchist classical liberal party, but it wouldn't be libertarian.....but I don't think you give a fuck about the internal squabbles of libertarianism anyway, so.......

]]>2019-02-13T18:57:44+01:002019-02-13T18:57:44+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987850#p14987850There would also be a significant increase in world peace if the US adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy.

]]>2019-02-13T18:56:52+01:002019-02-13T18:56:52+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987848#p14987848Victoribus Spolia wrote:I never said this either.

I don't think they can get elected, but whether they can or cannot get elected is entirely irrelevant to my objection to a Libertarian party.

Well then I don't really know why argue my assessment of your thinking when I said a Libertarian Party cannot get elected on a Libertarian Manifesto - which was what I gauged from your text. Not that it matters. I wasn't addressing most of you post because I agree with most of it - but for a completely different reason with a completely different conclusion. I only addressed why you would think a Libertarian Party is an oxymoron, when it isn't.

]]>2019-02-13T18:39:02+01:002019-02-13T18:39:02+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987844#p14987844B0ycey wrote:. If you stand by your assertion that a Libertarian Party can get elected,

I never said this either.

I don't think they can get elected, but whether they can or cannot get elected is entirely irrelevant to my objection to a Libertarian party.

]]>2019-02-13T18:42:05+01:002019-02-13T18:36:09+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987843#p14987843Drlee wrote:Agorism is the very antithesis of practical government

Well obviously, but I didn't claim otherwise, I said that it is practical regarding one's lifestyle, but it is indeed the antithesis to engagement in "politics" as it regards the state. Intentionally so.

Drlee wrote:Its basis flies in the face of observed human behavior for millennia.

How so? I tend to see it in the opposite light.

Drlee wrote:One only has to look at Konklin's notion of intellectual property to see the complete impracticality of the idea.

I don't see why, especially since "intellectual property" is the greatest justification for the unjust notions of "copyrights" and "patents" which are themselves the grounds for the vast majority of corporate monopolies in the United States and abroad.

Perhaps you can explain your position better.

Drlee wrote:So you see VS. It won't work because.....humans.

Opting out of voting and instead doing business on the grey and black markets is in-human?

That might be the weirdest objection I have ever heard to Agorism (as well as the most counter-intuitive).

]]>2019-02-13T18:27:57+01:002019-02-13T18:27:57+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987840#p14987840One only has to look at Konklin's notion of intellectual property to see the complete impracticality of the idea.

]]>2019-02-13T17:41:40+01:002019-02-13T17:41:40+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987827#p14987827Statistics: Posted by B0ycey — 13 Feb 2019 16:41
]]>2019-02-13T17:12:27+01:002019-02-13T17:12:27+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987825#p14987825B0ycey wrote:No you explained why a Libertarian Party would not get elected on a manifesto solely with the interests of the free market and why if they did get elected they might not act on their policies.

What!? Where did I say this in the post!? Please quote it and provide evidence for your claim; I NEVER made the argument you are claiming that I made. I am not critical of Libertarian party because it can't get elected, I am critical of the Libertarian party because it is a contradiction of the NAP to be involved in government at all (point two), it would cause libertarian political persons to persecute actual libertarians (point three), and government will never reform in a libertarian direction because of its praxeology (point one).

As proof: here are the summarized segments on each sub-point in my post, presented under their headings:

This was my thesis statement:

Victoribus Spolia wrote:The first pointis the idea that the state would/could ever reduce its power, the second one is the presumption that a representative government is even compatible with libertarian ideals in the first place, and the last pointis that such a position as you propose invariably pits actual libertarians against "reformist" libertarians in practice in a way that is patently ridiculous. So let me address these one-by-one.

Point One was headed as such

Victoribus Spolia wrote:I. The State Will Not Reduce Its Power.

Under this heading (point one of the thesis statement); I concluded my argument as such:

Victoribus Spolia wrote:Hence, the idea of a Libertarian Political Party is an oxymoron because the system is entirely predicated on deficit spending and not owning the means of governance. So not only does this doom the economic platform of Libertarianism to marginalization, but even if a Libertarian became elected, he could little to nothing to change this dynamic once in office and would therefore perform little different than your average democrat or republican.

Point two heading was this:

Victoribus Spolia wrote:II. Representative Government is NOT compatible with Libertarian Principles.

How does this have anything to do with electoral viability? The very point is about how it would be inconsistent for libertarians to run AT ALL.

Here was the conclusion under this heading:

Victoribus Spolia wrote:Hence, a Libertarian political party is an oxymoron because the government we have is a contradiction to libertarian ideals and the constitution itself is either anti-libertarian or utterly worthless.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:This hypothetical about Stan is also why a Libertarian Political Party is an oxymoron; the NAP is not a token political slogan, its a moral law that supersedes any government, and so to have a libertarian party is to invariably create a group of people claiming to hold that the NAP is true who are obligated to violate that same NAP in order to punish people who do actually live by it. I am sorry my friend, but that is just as absurd as Christians voluntarily joining a government that kills Christians and working for them in their process to do so. Its plain and simple horseshit, and so is a Libertarian Party.

When I read shit like this it makes me wonder if people even read my post at all.

I showed that Libertarian political philosophy is incompatible with representative government itself, the constitution, and that if libertarians got elected they would be forced to persecute more consistent libertarians; likewise, I argued under the first point that the government can never give up power and so a political party is likewise futile.

I NEVER argued that libertarians were merely unelectable. That is absurd (even if that is true).

Rather, I argued that Libertarians being involved in government would be contradicting their own principles and engaging in an act of futility.

No you explained why a Libertarian Party would not get elected on a manifesto solely with the interests of the free market and why if they did get elected they might not act on their policies. But none of this is an Oxymoron. Or are you redefining definitions again? After all, party principles does not mean electable principles.

Nonetheless your argument would make a great thread on why all political parties end up being the same once in power because apart from the conclusion you make a few very good points.

]]>2019-02-13T16:43:39+01:002019-02-13T16:43:39+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987817#p14987817Drlee wrote:Just impractical general disaffection and a lot of solutions in search of problems.

If by impractical you mean uninterested in futile attempts at political reform, then sure; however, on a day-to-day basis I have hardly seen a more practical political philosophy; especially when you consider something like Agorism.

]]>2019-02-13T16:36:03+01:002019-02-13T16:36:03+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987815#p14987815B0ycey wrote:but neglected to explain why a Libertarian Party is an oxymoron but instead addressed why it might not be elected. Big difference.

When I read shit like this it makes me wonder if people even read my post at all.

I showed that Libertarian political philosophy is incompatible with representative government itself, the constitution, and that if libertarians got elected they would be forced to persecute more consistent libertarians; likewise, I argued under the first point that the government can never give up power and so a political party is likewise futile.

I NEVER argued that libertarians were merely unelectable. That is absurd (even if that is true).

Rather, I argued that Libertarians being involved in government would be contradicting their own principles and engaging in an act of futility.

]]>2019-02-13T06:07:08+01:002019-02-13T06:07:08+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987765#p14987765Statistics: Posted by Drlee — 13 Feb 2019 05:07
]]>2019-02-12T22:18:11+01:002019-02-12T22:18:11+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987689#p14987689Statistics: Posted by B0ycey — 12 Feb 2019 21:18
]]>2019-02-12T22:04:59+01:002019-02-12T22:04:59+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987686#p14987686I used to identify as a Libertarian, but then I grew a brain, a dick, and a heart.

Seriously though, I think I just stopped caring to follow someone else's ideas/principles. I'm basically following my own set ideas/principles these days which is largely a hybrid of a bunch of other shit of course.

]]>2019-02-12T21:57:58+01:002019-02-12T21:57:58+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175983&p=14987684#p14987684Other than yourself, I am probably the only active Libertarian still on this forum, so I am hesitant to get in a dispute with someone within my own tribe, but I think some things need to be mentioned regarding the problem with a Libertarian political party given the actual political philosophy of Libertarianism, so let me first address your first remark:

LaDexter wrote:There are plenty of political oxymorons, but that isn't one.

I respectfully disagree; and in doing so I am following the ideas of Edward Konkin in his work "The New Libertarian Manifesto." and to a lesser (but no less profound) degree, of Hans-Herman Hoppe in his work "Democracy, The God That Failed."

The reason I disagree is because the idea of reducing or eliminating government by becoming one of its machinations is entirely misplaced for several points.

The first point is the idea that the state would/could ever reduce its power, the second one is the presumption that a representative government is even compatible with libertarian ideals in the first place, and the last point is that such a position as you propose invariably pits actual libertarians against "reformist" libertarians in practice in a way that is patently ridiculous. So let me address these one-by-one.

I. The State Will Not Reduce Its Power.

The point is important, and depending on how you respond, we could go in deep to discuss it, but for now it will suffice for me to summarize the main idea; namely, that government will NOT reduce its power given its nature as a human institution (praxeology).

The state as we have it ( a social contract style representative system) is predicated on a lack of private ownership in the governing process itself. The reason this is significant is because such a scenario creates a case where temporarily elected representatives are in charge of major economic decisions for which they themselves are not financially liable.

Under such conditions, you have people who gain power purely by an appeal to the population, serving temporary terms, and having no personal liability for any use of money for the general public. What sort of state of affairs would predictibly obtain given this recipe?

Firstly, it means that in order to gain votes, these politicians will offer what is popular, not what is responsible. So, even though cutting taxes is popular, so is increasing benefits, and since money is currently printed at will by the U.S. government, there is no reason why taxes can't be kept very low while spending remains high; and that is exactly what both parties have generally done. This has nothing to do with their relative platforms, its a matter of what they MUST do given human nature and what it takes to get elected.

Thus, deficit spending and an exponentially increasing debt is not only a winning platform for both parties, but is something they cannot even help, for not only are such actions the only way to get power and stay in power, but none of these representatives are personally liable for these "public funds."

For instance, if I were to personally spend more that I earn, I would lose my home, car, and assets; however, when an elected representative does this, he loses nothing as he is not the personal owner of the government or its assets; rather, he is only a temporary caretaker elected purely on the basis for his ability to be financially irresponsible.

Hence, the idea of a Libertarian Political Party is an oxymoron because the system is entirely predicated on deficit spending and not owning the means of governance. So not only does this doom the economic platform of Libertarianism to marginalization, but even if a Libertarian became elected, he could little to nothing to change this dynamic once in office and would therefore perform little different than your average democrat or republican.

II. Representative Government is NOT compatible with Libertarian Principles.

This point is a tough one to swallow for most Americans, but its just a fact. The cardinal principle of Libertarianism is the Non-Aggression Principle (Voluntaryism). This principle is what defines Libertarianism; however, its this very principle that exists in contradiction to the U.S. Constitution and the system of government that stems from it.

For instance, the federal government taxes me at gunpoint, if I don't pay taxes they will make me do so under threat of force. This is a violation of the NAP and therefore invalid. Now, you might object that I can vote and am therefore complicit in this thievery via representation; however, I never agreed to this arrangement, nor did my father, nor did his father's father. We are born under this obligation and must abide by it against our will or consent.

Indeed, if it were truly voluntary and consistent with the NAP, then we could surrender our privilege to vote in exchange for no longer having to pay taxes; however, we all know what would happen then now don't we? Everyone would surrender their voting privileges in order to be tax free and the government would entirely collapse.

Next, let me hit the Constitution of the United States specifically on this point; namely the idea that its represents a libertarian document that we ought to use or uphold as a standard; I will now quote Lysander Spooner in refuting this notion:

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

-Lysander Spooner, The Constitution of No Authority.

Think about that for a moment; the U.S. constitution either directly authorized the tyrannical regime we have now (that I presume you have serious problems with); or it was powerless to prevent the rise of such a bloated regime. Thus, this constitution is either a doctrine explicitly promoting tyranny, or is an impotent piece of paper.

Thus, from a Libertarian perspective, the U.S. constitution is either a document of tyrants or mere trash that lying politicians pay lip service to in order to dupe the masses who would believe them.

Hence, a Libertarian political party is an oxymoron because the government we have is a contradiction to libertarian ideals and the constitution itself is either anti-libertarian or utterly worthless.

III. Libertarian Political Reform Creates Treacherous Stupidity.

Now, lets imagine a libertarian party becoming involved in politics as a viable party and being involved in government. Under such a scenario, you may have libertarian police officers, libertarian home inspectors, libertarian judges, libertarian jailers, etc, etc. These guys are trying to "reform" the system by being "a part of it," and so they have good intentions, no matter how retarded they actually are; now let me show you why such a scenario is retarded.

Imagine that by majority vote, Congress passes into law the continuance of a ban on marijuana and a ban on homeschooling. Now, in this scenario, Libertarians DID try to stop this legislation, but just lacked the votes to get it stopped (in spite having more numbers in Congress than ever before in their history).

So, with this new law being signed into implementation by the President of the United States, you now have a whole governemnt obligated under the Constitution to abide by and enforce this law.

Now, lets say a Libertarian home-inspector (he only became an "inspector" so that he could "reform" the system) is called to a home to check the windows on a cabin being built by an ACTUAL Libertarian named Stan.

Stan finds out that the home-inspector is a Libertarian and so he feels free to complain to the inspector about the evil government and how he is keeping a bunch of unregistered firearms, growing his own marijuana, and homeschooling his ten kids.

After which, the Libertarian home-inspector informs Stan that he now has to report this to the proper authorities given the new law that was passed, and so the libertarian home inspector turns in the libertarian homeowner to the police, but he does tell Stan that he wished he didn't have to do so because he shares his "views."

The police then come, and Stan finds out that the police man who is cuffing him is also a libertarian (he became a police officer to reform the policing system to make it more libertarian). so, actual libertarian Stan is taken into custody for practicing libertarianism by the libertarian cop, but the Libertarian cop tells Stan that "he wished he didn't have to do this, because he shares Stan's views."

At the court, he finds out his judge is also an elected judge from the Libertarian Party, the guy ran to become the local judge because he wanted to reform the system, and so the Judge now condemns the actual libertarian Stan for doing libertarian things and sends him to jail where he is guarded by a libertarian guard. Both the Judge and the guard tell Stan that they "wished they didn't have to do this," because they share his views.

This hypothetical about Stan is also why a Libertarian Political Party is an oxymoron; the NAP is not a token political slogan, its a moral law that supersedes any government, and so to have a libertarian party is to invariably create a group of people claiming to hold that the NAP is true who are obligated to violate that same NAP in order to punish people who do actually live by it.

I am sorry my friend, but that is just as absurd as Christians voluntarily joining a government that kills Christians and working for them in their process to do so. Its plain and simple horseshit, and so is a Libertarian Party.

That's just breathtaking. Apparently, supporters of big government still haven't admitted what happened in Greece when their fantasy big government spent and spent and spent and didn't care how much it stole or how bankrupt it left Greece and its people....

"How does the government achieve financial solvency without control over individuals behavior?"

]]>2019-02-12T19:32:45+01:002019-02-12T19:32:45+01:00http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=176094&p=14987663#p14987663Sivad wrote:well whatever but most of the sophisticated ironic post modern scientistic types seem to think they've evolved beyond religion and the religious impulse when all they've really done is secularize it.